tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC October 9, 2014 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
chance to work with him. >> dale ho, thank you so much for joining us tonight. i really appreciate it. >> thanks a lot, lawrence. chris hayes is up next. the secret service spills a sex story. let's play "hardball." ♪ ♪ good evening, i'm chris matthews in washington. remember that trip to cartagena president obama took two years ago? remember the trouble the secret service got itself into that weekends, the boozing and the prostitutes? with the president blaming it all on a couple of knuckle heads. fasten your seat belt. there it is, the news that the white house was given information suggesting that a prostitute was an overnight guest of a member of the president's advance team but government investigators kept that information from its report
on the handling of the secret service episode. so the advance team member, the difference being, he never got exposed, never suffered the punishment doled out to a dozen agents who got caught up in the whole matter. joining me now, two white house correspondents, kristen welker with nbc news and david with "the washington post." jonathan dock had a sex worker at his hotel room on that trip to colombia. quote, the hotel logs for dach's stay, showed that a woman was registered to his room at on april 4, including an attached photocopy i.d. of the woman. it matches that of a woman advertising herself as a prostitute. dach has denied hiring a prostitute or bringing anyone to his room.
this secret service agent who is added to the witness list, along with the hotel logs, is he going to come forward? >> he came forward to talk with the investigators. his eyewitness account stands as far as, the question is whether they'll continue to talk about this publicly, i don't know. but as far as the inspector general's office is concerned, it's an open question as to what happened. what the white house is saying, they interviewed johnny dach more than once and he said he did not have a woman in his room. other people on the trip said they did not see anything suspicious. so the white house dropped the investigation. but i think what we're seeing is that there's plenty more evidence, from --
>> those other people from the white house advance team, in the hotel lobby when he came in at midnight? >> they were with him part of the evening. he got there the day before. came back to the hotel with his colleagues, at that point, there are questions about what happened overnight. >> the secret service agent who testified here, any reason to disbelieve any of them? any reason they have a reason to be incompetent or dishonest in making these claims? >> i think the logs from the hotel showed this guest was registered to the room. many other agents who were implicated has the same evidence and they ultimately were found culpable. the white house has pointed to
one case in which an agent was purported to have a woman and proved he did not, but overwhelmingly, with -- this was the initial amount of evidence that impacted others. >> it's a concern among the agents who suffered consequences, also in the inspector general's office, those who investigated thought this should be fully aired. >> let's look at how the white house has reacted to the incident. from the washington post, secret service first provided evidence to white house counsel indicating dach registered a prostitute into his room at the hilton. this is what jay carney told reporters days later. >> there have been no alleged misconduct anyone on the white house staff. there's no indication that any member of the white house advance team engaged in any improper or -- conduct or behavior. >> kristen welker and i have been talking on this matter during the day. "the washington post" treat it as a major story. they believe the evidence is there that the white house did
not act on this the same way they did in dealing with the secret service agents. what's your feeling up there? >> well, it does raise questions about transparency. why didn't we learn when this investigation was going on, that the white house had evidence to suggest that this woman was signed into the room of johnny dach. i've been speaking to white house officials throughout the day. they're pushing back against this report. they they're defending the review that took place. i spoke with a former official who was engaged in that review who said they interviewed johnny dach three separate times, as well as several officials who were on that trip with him and no one saw this woman coming into his room at the time, or into the hotel with him. and the question is -- [ all speak at once ] >> that's the big question. >> i'm just talking about the fact, not the right or wrong, or the gravity of the situation. what i'm asking, was there anybody in position to deny the facts of the story, the fact there was a log, an agent who did see it?
was there anyone there who did not see this happening at midnight? is anybody claiming he was present when he came into the -- >> the white house is saying, based on the people they interviewed, they didn't see him go into the room with someone. now what we're seeing is this witness come forward, speaking out anonymously saying that, in fact, they did see him walk in with this woman. and the question was, where was this witness at the time of the initial investigation? having said all this, it raises questions about transparency and your seeing the congressman who wrote a letter to white house chief of staff, demanding to see all the documents from that review. i think you'll see the calls growing louder for the documents to be released. i'm told right now, there are no plans to release the documents, but i think that's where the conversation has in the coming day. >> the lead investigator later told senator staffers he felt pressure from his peers to withhold evidence and that decisions were made with political considerations in mind.
a committee looked into the allegations and this was their conclusion. the sub committee did not substantiate those allegations. >> that's true, but they also did not disprove them. what the sub committee found was that the investigator told congressional investigators that he felt this pressure, but his superiors said they did not do anything improper and there was no political considerations here. so it was a he said, he said and there no way to determine one way or the other. >> but you had a witness who said they would put pressure on them not to go forward and put it in the report? >> absolutely. he suffered consequence. he was put on administrative leave. this lead investigator went to cartagena, interviewed hotel
staff, these are things the white house did not do. the white house said this was a volunteer travel. for us to send an investigator would be inappropriate. it would look ridiculous. but that's what this ig's report determined with face to face interviews in cartagena. he was put on leave for what his boss was said an unrelated matter, but he believes was retaliation. >> so what's the whole theme? >> i think the white house was quick to say that none of their staff was involved, none of the advance team, of which this person was a member. and that there was no substantial evidence, jay carney said three days after questions were raised about whether or not a white house person was involved. quickly said no repeatedly that anybody had been involved. now we're finding out that the investigation and evidence was presented to the white house and it continued after that and was not made public that that was going on. >> do you believe that they have nailed down the truth that jonathan dach had a sex worker in his room that night? >> no.
what it says, there was information presented by the secret service to the white house, that this information exists, that the woman was registered to this room. there was additional evidence in a separate investigation by the inspector general. the question is, what did the white house do with the information? that's the accountability question. >> do you share the skepticism from the witness here? >> i think it's worth reviewing. and the question to the white house, did you review this thoroughly and and they said none of their staff members or travel associates on the trip were involved, when the agents were being disciplined, said all the team with him has to be held to the highest standard. the question is the whether the white house looked thoroughly into that question, even though they were saying they had done so. >> do you believe he was given preferable treatment because of his father's ties to the white
house? >> he supported some of the first lady's initiative -- >> what's your evidence that he got favorable treatment for his son? >> there's no evidence. the question was, the inspector general's lead investigator into this report said that he had been pressured by his superiors to remove information -- yes, absolutely. [ all speak at once ] >> so we're going to hear. let me go back to kristen. are we going to have a couple days back and forth between the people who talked to the post and the white house denying they have credibility. where is this going? >> i wouldn't be surprised. and i would make a couple of points. i think this underscores the tensions between the white house and the secret service when they're going through this incredibly difficult time, a pivotal time for the secret service.
the secret service feels as though there was special treatment. i think that could be a challenge moving forward, as you know, president obama just appointed a new interim director of the secret service. joe clancy. he's charged with trying to get the agency back on track. i've been told that the house oversight committee is launching its own investigation into these four recent breaches. cartagena, the 2011 shooting in which it took the secret service four days to determine the bullets hit the white house. the atlanta incident when president obama was in the elevator with an armed man. and the most recent one, the white house fence jumping in which an intruder made it deep inside the white house. so i think we'll be learning more about all of the breaches in the coming days. i can tell you, according to a senior administration official, the department of homeland security plans to appoint a four-member panel by the end of this week to start reviewing all of these scandals that have rocked the agency. >> thank you so much, kristen
welker and david. we'll see how it develops. coming up, republicans may have found an issue to run on this november. fear. fear itself. republican candidates across the country are using things like the threat of isis and ebola to scare the voters into voting against democrats. let's see if it's working. and what the democrats can do to fight it. it's hard to fight the notion of fear when it's so imminent. this is "hardball," the place for politics.
we've got a slew of new senate polls tonight and for that we check the "hardball" scoreboard. to new hampshire, shaheen is over brown, 47-41. in line with the polling we've seen there all along. brown could win if there's a republican sweep. next, dan sullivan leading begich by six. sullivan, 50, begich, 44. that's consistent with other
recent polling showing begich trailing in alaska. this one may be gelling. in kansas, a cnn opinion poll has pat roberts leading greg orman by just one, 49-48. orman could be too much of a question mark for the voters. in north carolina, kay hagan is up two over tom tillis. 47-45. hagan's holding that slim lead and we'll be there tomorrow in north carolina. in arkansas, a fox news poll has tom cotton over mark pryor by seven. 46-39. finally to kentucky, the poll has mcconnell leading alison lundergan by four, 45-41. she can still do it. we'll be right back after this.
be afraid. that's the message from many republicans running from 2014. people like scott brown and tom tillis who have used ebola and isis to knock their opponent. >> one of the reasons why i have been so adamant about closing our border because people are coming in from normal channels. can you imagine what they can do through a porous border? >> the fact of the matter, senator hagan has failed the people of north carolina and the nation by not securing the border. we have an ebola outbreak and we have bad actors coming across the border. >> the question of how safe we have is being used in attacks against democrats. you're seeing it in ads like these. >> evil forces around the world want to harm americans every day. they're entering into our country through arizona's
backyard. yet kirkpatrick votes with her party against protecting arizona, voted against technology to detect illegal border crossing, she even voted with nancy pelosi against providing funds to secure the border. >> with america's national security threatened, warnings of islamic extremists, isil plotting imminent attacks. what does mark udall say? >> i said last week, isil does not present an imminent threat to this nation and -- >> really? can we take that chance? >> for the record, the director of the national terrorism center himself has said there's no evidence isis is plotting to attack the united states here. senator udall said we need to respond to the threat posed by isis itself. yet you have republicans like tom cotton alleging isis is collaborating with mexican drug cartels to cross over the border.
>> it's not just an immigration problem. we now know that it's a security problem. the islamic state, collaborate with drug cartels in mexico and have clearly shown they're willing to expand outside the drug trade into human trafficking and potentially even terrorism. >> evidence that isis and the cartels are collaborating, several right-wing blogs, including one that quotes someone with no direct knowledge of current intelligence, suggesting that it's something that may happen. then there's this claim from duncan hunter from california. >> if you're talking about protecting americans, isis is coming across the southern border -- >> let me ask you -- >> -- they won't be bombing american cities, but they will be coming across from mexico. >> do you have any information or evidence that they're coming in the southern border now? >> yes, yes.
>> tell me what you know. >> i know that at least ten isis fighters have been caught coming across the mexican border in texas. >> the department of homeland security has said that claim is false. today the homeland secretary said several middle eastern men were arrested trying to cross the border. but they were members of a kurdish group who fight against isis. joan, i want you to start here. this is so wild, these accusations. >> they are. >> and they're so apocalyptic, i should say, the world's ending, there's going to be bombings in the united states and california. you don't need evidence to just say it. >> no. >> and a lot of this is anti-mexican.
this is one excuse to be a prejudiced person. admit it, i got no problem with regular illegal immigrants, i don't want the people carrying bombs. >> now they're carrying bombs. that's why they have the cantaloupe legs now, carrying the bombs over the border. no, it's ludicrous, chris. remember when we have the child migrant crisis on the border. that's been largely solved. but the migrants who carry disease and drugs, they've been replaced by isis and ebola. it's straight out of the republican xenophobic playbook. we can have a rational debate about whether we love the response to isis and ebola. on the other hand, this goes right into the heart of obama derangement syndrome. some of these people, especially the right-wing talkers, really like to say the president is sympathetic to isis because of his muslim roots, or that he's too soft on ebola, because of his africa roots. right now, david vitter is
holding up the funding bill for ebola because he thinks it devotes too much attention to africa. so we can have a rational debate. there are ways to disagree about this. but this is straight out of the obama derangement syndrome midterm election playbook. >> i'm amused that everyone's getting all worked up about this. this is politics. this is the 11th-hour politics. you know what it reminds me of? it reminds me of the side that popped up in my neighborhood when i was running for u.s. senate, that was obviously put there by democrats, warning the community that if i'm elected a u.s. senator, that church bombings will begin. the whole civil rights agenda from the left is no different than what you're seeing played out here in a campaign scenario. >> michael, that's an exaggeration. it's not the same. >> how many churches got burned
when george bush got elected? can we visit the same hyperbole and sanctimony? >> where are these ads? i never saw them. >> you may not have seen them, but they showed up on air when i was a candidate. and a whole lot of noise about -- >> let's retreat to truth. [ all speak at once ] >> okay, okay. you've exhausted my memory track. i can't get back -- >> i can't either. >> do you think there might be something to the charge when they talk about the border, the implication is the mexican border. they never talk about the canadian border. there might be something of a dangerous there.
but it's ethnic. there's no border checks along the canadian border. the millennial bomber came through canada. >> why are you acting like this is something new? >> we think it's a cover for another charge. >> i don't know the evidence you have for that. >> come on! >> what evidence do you have that this is a racist attempt to -- >> but why do they focus on the border -- >> and the child migrant crisis -- [ all speak at once ] >> that's where we've gotten 20 million illegal people from. >> and what's that got to do with isis or ebola? >> some believe there's
evidence. there's dispute as to -- >> some believe. come on, michael. [ all speak at once ] >> i understand the political points you're trying to score. >> can we look at this analytically? we've had one tragedy of ebola in this country, someone who came through belgium and dulles airport in washington. they didn't sneak across dressed in arab clothing and leaving behind the koran. >> i understand that. >> they came in broad daylight from belgium.
>> i want to get back to joan's point. you can have the rational discussion about whether or not we've failed to deal with ebola, we failed to deal with isis correctly. but we are at the last minute of a political season and this is the drama that is put up there. >> let's go to your successor, the chairman of the national committee who defeated you. the tragedy is a fair one, according to him. he told the "new york times," it's the accumulation of ineptitude that's hovering over obama and in turn, his lieutenants that are running for united states senate. i think it's a powerful message because number one, it's true, and number two, it's simple.
committee who defeated you. the tragedy is a fair one, according to him. he told the "new york times," it's the accumulation of ineptitude that's hovering over obama and in turn, his lieutenants that are running for united states senate. i think it's a powerful message because number one, it's true, and number two, it's simple. here's what i'm thinking, we all watch kimmel's thing with biden. enjoyed it because it made us feel superior and sophisticated because we know who joe biden is. >> we do. >> but the person out there with a little bit of interest in politics will hear this scare talk. >> yeah. >> and you think that's fair politics? >> i don't know about you and joan, but i give the american voter a little bit more credit than that. [ all speak at once ] >> i don't think any voter is going to go to the polls quaking in their boots and voting republican because, guess what, oh, isis may come over the border. because i saw a campaign commercial that told me so. >> the guys writing those commercials are >> republican peop the democr w >> c n >> there you go. >> anyway, thank you. a place in history for this scapegoating. thank you, michael steele that it's not you. you're just defending it. thanks, joan. up next, hillary clinton talks about falli b this say little bit high school. i'll be in north carolina tomorrow to cover the senate race tomorrow. we'll have our r this ♪ ftness... i've never seen anything so soft!
charmin! take a closer look at charmin ultra soft and you'll love what you see. not only can you use less, but you can actually see the softness in our comfort cushions. plus charmin ultra soft is so much more absorbent you can use up to four times less. what are you boys looking at? my main squeeze. rotorooter approved. charmin is clog-free or it's free. it's one of the fastest growing crimes in america. there's a new victim of identity theft every three seconds. makes you wonder -- "am i next?" one weak password could be all it takes -- or trusting someone you shouldn't. over 70 million records with personal information were compromised in recent security breaches. you think checking your credit cards or credit report protects you? of course, lifelock can do that for you. but lifelock also helps protect you from more serious fraud, like attempts to get a mortgage in your name.
take over your bank accounts, or even drain your investment accounts. lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. alerting you to threats by text, phone or email. ♪ your response helps stop thieves before they do damage, with three layers of protection, detecting threats to your finances, alerting you to potential danger. and if there's a problem, your resolution expert helps restore your identity. ♪ banks and credit cards alone can't offer protection like that. plus, it's backed by a $1 million service guarantee. if your identity is compromised, lifelock will spend up to $1 million on experts to help restore it. try lifelock risk free for 60 days. enter promo code easy. act now and get this convenient multi-device charger to charge all your devices at the same time -- a $30 value free!
call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com/easy. try the most comprehensive identity theft protection available risk free for 60 days with promo code easy. plus get a multi-device charger free. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com/easy. ♪ back to "hardball." time now for the side show. no question the past few weeks have been tough for the president. now with isis on the move again, the president's critics are
raising new questions about our military campaign in the middle east. not only about the strategy, but also about choosing an appropriate name for the operation itself. and that was stephen colbert's concern last night. >> this is the first military intervention in 25 years without a code name. now, it might be because our chin stroker in chief wants to avoid an embarrassing acronym here, like past rejected code names. operation afghan freedom which spelled oaf by accident. or operation iraqi freedom which spelled oil. but so far the only name military planners have suggested to the pentagon was operation inherent resolve, which was rejected because as one military officer put it, it was just kind of blah. i agree, i agree. although given the mood of the country right now, i might go with operation kind of blah. hillary clinton spoke in chicago yesterday and told the audience that she had initially declined the job of secretary of state when barack obama first offered it to her in 2008.
in fact, she compared her eventual decision to take that job to her decision to eventually accept bill clinton's marriage proposal. >> in my discussions after he offered me the job in chicago, then i said no, then i said no again, and finally i just gave in and as i said to somebody the other day, i told my husband no, and i wouldn't get married, and no, and just gave in. so i have a history with charismatic attractive men who just wear me out. >> charismatic attractive men who just wear me out. laying it on thick. finally an item that falls under the heading of don't call me, i'll call you. most people would be excited to get a call from the white house. but apparently not everyone. jimmy carter spoke to "people"
magazine for their upcoming 40th anniversary issue, and here's how the president responded if he was asked if he ever hears from president obama. quote, not really. when i was president i called ford and nixon until they finally asked me to leave them alone. is carter that tiresome? or were ford and nixon just bored with him? anyway, how republicans attempt to bridge the gender gap this year. not going according to plan. that's next. and take a look at the preview of coming attractions. hillary clinton and chris christie on the campaign trail today. christie is the embattled republican governor tom corbett. you're watching "hardball," a place for politics.
welcome back to "hardball." time now for the round table. we'll dig into the latest twist in the secret service story and republican fear mongering and how that can move the voters or not this november. plus, the gop gender gap. the republicans have a women problem when president obama trounced mitt romney by 11 points. yesterday we showed you highlight polls of crucial senate races like north carolina
and colorado where the women support the democrat by double-digits. we'll get into all of that. michelle bernard, who was featured in the november issue of "essence" magazine, as a rising star in politics today. u.s. congresswoman donna edwards of maryland is already a star and and liz mayer is somebody i'm meeting today, a former spokesperson for the republican national committee. >> the president called the secret service knuckle heads. 12 were zapped, had their careers ruined. now we find out this guy running advance for the president may have been guilty of the exact same sin, if you will, of having sex workers in his room that night. >> well, the difference is, he was a volunteer, not secret service. but the problem goes deep in the secret service.
i mean, it's systemic. >> what about the white house advance guy involved? >> i think the white house needs to deal with that and figure out what its protocols are for dealing with people who advance them and making sure that they're the right people. i mean, it's kind of embarrassing and silly. >> do you think it's an open question whether they should be able to have a hooker or not? [ all speak at once ] >> that's not the open question. >> there are things that stand out to me that i think are really bad about this. and i'm saying this purely with my woman hat, not with anything partisan going on. first of all, calling them knuckleheads, i think diminishes this. when we're talking about meme who work as sex workers, those tend to be some of the most exploited and vulnerable people in all societies, even places where it's vulnerable. knuckleheads is really playing it low. >> you think that's a frat boy's reference? >> yeah. i think it's very dismissive. when it's a serious issue. [ all speak at once ] >> he doesn't want to make the
guys who are protecting his life -- >> i get that. >> -- morally inferior. >> but obviously he's already done it, because there's retribution with people coming out with information about this volunteer, which ultimately, we don't know 100% what happened. >> exactly. >> but it doesn't look good. and the real problem isn't necessarily what he did or didn't do, i can't believe he was offered a job as a contractor handling women's issues. that's extraordinary. [ all speak at once ] >> this a fight behind the scenes between the secret service and the president? >> if you delve into it more clearly and i am clearly, you know -- there's no evidence that he did anything wrong. he was a 25-year-old yale student. is he going to risk being disbarred over having a prostitute in his room in a country where it's legal? [ all speak at once ] >> i think the white house needs
to examine what it asked because they don't want people who work for them when they call them on the carpet to lie. so i think that's a bigger question. >> i get why this guy didn't want to say what happened if that's what's going on -- >> bill clinton wouldn't have said either. >> but that's not the point. he was a person who was doing the hiring. who was he volunteering before? if you're dismissive about this kind of thing, that doesn't make it right. when you're standing up and saying we're championing women's rights. that just looks ridiculous. [ all speak at once ] >> it was a secret service agent who was misidentified at a different hotel in cartagena. they said he brought a prostitute in his room. >> they didn't have records. >> he didn't have records from the hotel. >> what about the witness?
>> plus the hotel records. >> i'm so much more concerned about us getting to the problems within the secret service. >>. >> yeah. >> let's talk about something. you're all women. i've always believed that choice, abortion rights is a big signal to a lot of people about how you stand with women. but i thought it was more than that. in my family, traditional marriage, my wife knows all the shots the kids have had when they're growing up, knew all the teachers, knew most of their classmates. men are a bit out to lunch generally unless you're mr. modern about any of that stuff. so when you go to vote, you look at the health issues. what's covered in my husband's health insurance? for some reason, women are the proprietors of most homes. >> they pay the bills. they know what everything costs. they know what's coming in. they are the ones that handle that. if you look at demographic data about who is becoming a small
business owner, it's women. >> how does your party get them back then? >> not the way we're doing it right now. [ laughter ] >> i would just hasten to add that i think that the candidates we're fielding in colorado, and north carolina generally are poor candidates. i don't think they are matching when they should be capable of doing it in those states. going into the cycle, i honestly thought if somebody said, who's the most vulnerable democrat, i would have said kay hagan by a mile and that's not happening. so we have problem with candidate recruitment. [ all speak at once ] >> but that's such a low bar to clear. >> and -- filled with women and no statements that money is more important to men than women. but here's the problem. within the republican party there's a very small gender gap when you're looking at married, wealthy white women. >> how about women who work outside the home? >> white women who work outside of the home, by and large, large numbers of them vote republican. the problem for the republican party is the browning of
america, and african american women, women of color, asian women, do not have any reason right now to vote for the republican party. [ all speak at once ] >> if you ask questions about why women care about things like violence against women and why there's a gender gap here, when you have more than half of the republican party voting against reauthorizing the violence against women act tells me -- >> and then saying it only applies to women who are legal citizens of the united states. >> what about tom tillis saying it was a gimmick, talking about equal pay? >> again -- >> women know they don't get
paid equally. when they know black women are making 64 cents on the dollar. >> i don't know if it's necessarily that. i could have plenty of arguments about statistics that people cite with regard to the pay equity gap and why they're not necessarily representative. but as a candidate, you can't be going out and arguing about all these little details. people don't seemed to understand at this point. there's an old saying, if you're explaining, you're losing. >> mike huckabee, he said he's going to leave the republican party if they don't take a harder stance against same-sex marriage. back in a minute.
tomorrow we'll be doing this show from the southern part, chapel hill, north carolina. and i'll be inducted to the north carolina journalism hall of fame. joining david brinkley and my friend charlie rose. it's a great honor to have my name on such an historic list of news men. i can't wait to get there. anyway, just happens to be one of the great college towns in the world. we'll be right back.
fighting hard enough for same-sex marriage. this is huckabee yesterday on american family radio. >> i am utterly exasperated with republicans and the so-called leadership of the republicans who have abdicated on this issue when, if they continue this direction, they guaranteed they're going to lose every election in the future. guarantee it. the republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still god-fearing, loving people. just to abdicate on this issue
and while you're at it, go ahead and said abortion doesn't matter, either. at that point, you lose me. i'm gone. i'll become an ind pen dent. i'll start finding people that have guts to stand. i'm tired of this. >> what do you make of that? is that the voice of your party? >> no, it is not. and i think there are a couple ways you can tell. you can look at polling. if you look at polling and republican independence, a majority support same-sex marriage. there were only two prominent republicans who said anything negative about it. him and ted cruise. that speaks volumes. >> well, bobby was a little sort of wishy wash shi. >> rick santorum who is running again, you said huckabee. you have a strong, right wing front there that doesn't want to have anything to do with same-sex marriage. >> hold on. hold on. as the republican here -- >> i would be saying to mike
huckabee, if i wanted to win elections in the future, good riddance. >> i think he's right. i think there's no place in the republican party for him. and there's no place in the republican party for that. and i think, you know, it would serve us all well, frankly, from a governing standpoint, if these guys just go away. >> i also just want to make the poent that the people he's speaking to, who they say are going to exit with him, is a very small portion. and they say it's all social conservatives. for social conservatives, i am not one, but knowing them very well, for social conservatives, there is a huge difference between abortions and same-sex marriage. there's a huge difference. on abortion, that is murder. whatever you want to say about same-sex marriage and gay couples, it isn't murder.
>> i would say that the parents of gay people are very turned off by the platform. >> we have gay children and neighbors and other family members and we know them. that's the reason that the country has moved. it really is. and the supreme court followed that movement is not a surprise. and anybody else who isn't going that direction is just going to be left behind. >> it is just no different than the time when african americans and whites was illegal to get married. anyone who is on the side that mike huckabee is on is going to find themselves and national embarrassment on the wrong side. >> under the age of 50, those people are going to be the voters.
>> my last point is not everybody is out. they're gay and not advertising and they don't like the way people are talking about it. so thank you for being here. good luck. you're really kind of aggressive here, which i think is interesting. i told you to be aggressive. we'll be right back after this. [voice echoing] no one at all! no one at all! no one. wake up! [gasp] oh! you okay, buddy? i just had a dream that progressive had this thing called... the "name your price" tool... it isn't a dream, is it? nope. sorry! you know that thing freaks me out. he can hear you. he didn't mean that, kevin. kevin: yes, he did! keeping our competitors up at night. now, that's progressive.
we are producing a biofuel made from renewable sugarcane to fuel cars. let's broaden the world's energy mix, let's go. let me first namish tonight that the democrats hold their national convention in philadelphia. it will give delegates and the tv audience watching from home a look at democratic roots, a look
at a refresher course in the values that gave birth to america. can we imagine how inspieshing it would be to go into the very room where the declaration was signed, right there in independence mall itself. individual delegates signed the documents holding these truths to be self evident endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. all created equal. what a great standard to hold high. the pursuit of happiness. what other country is built on an idea, one that animates us even today as marriage equality spreads across the country. philadelphia has all of these history on neighborhood display, an easy walk from your hotel. a wonderful excursion back into the history of this country. jimmy kimmel ran into people on the sidewalk who have no idea who joe biden is.
the great thing about america, something we overlook, is that you don't need to know someone to get safe or keep safe. you don't have to have an in with a party member to be on the side with the government. you don't need to worry about someone rating you out because you said something against those in office. why? because we have a constitution. agreed to in philadelphia that protects you even if you don't make the slightest protection to do so yourself. it's called the bill of rights. all created equal. equal protection of the laws, all of these guarantees, the principles that are at the very foundation of our country, all on powerful display in a city just up route 95 from here. today, in philadelphia, there was another powerful tribute to the country's beginning and to the courage that made it happen. if the democrats commit to holding its national convention there, the summer of '16 will give us the greatest opportunity
to visit those roots, the stroll where washington and franklin and jefferson once strode and to remember that this government was created by imperfect human beings just like us. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us tonight. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. >> tonight on "all in." protests erupt in st. louis after an officer-involved shooting. two months after the shooting of michael brown in ferguson. then, caught on tape. >> video of what seems to be a new york police officer stealing someone's money. plus, the secret service versus the obama administration. new leaks to the same washington post reporter. this time, against the white house. and "all in" america hits the road with 130 foot long wind turbine blade.